Group items tagged

"The effective implementation of OpenScience calls for a scientific communication ecosystem capable of enabling the "Open Science publishing principles" of transparency and reproducibility. Such ecosystem should provide tools, policies, and trust needed by scientists for sharing/interlinking (for "discovery" and "transparent evaluation") and re-using (for "reproducibility") all research products produced during the scientific process, e.g. literature, research data, methods, software, workflows, protocols, etc. OpenAIRE fosters OpenScience by advocating its publishing principles across Europe and research communities and by offering technical services in support of OA monitoring, research impact monitoring, and Open Science publishing. Its aim is to provide Research Infrastructures (RIs) with the services required to bridge the research life-cycle they support - where scientists produce research products - with the scholarly communication infrastructure - where scientists publish research products - in such a way science is reusable, reproducible, and transparently assessable. OpenAIRE is fostering the establishment of reliable, trusted, and long lasting RIs by compensating the lack of OS publishing solutions and providing the support required by RIs to upgrade existing solutions to meet OpenScience publishing needs (e.g. technical guidelines, best practices, OA mandates). To this aim, OpenAIRE is working closely with existing RIs to extend its service portfolio by introducing two services implementing the concept of "Open Science as a Service" (OSaaS): The Research Community Dashboard. Thanks to its functionality, scientists of RIs can find tools for publishing all their research products, such as literature, datasets, software, research packages, etc. (provide metadata, get DOIs, and ensure preservation of files), interlink such products manually or by exploiting advanced mining techniques, and integrate their services to automatically publish

"In this article two scholars engage in a conversation about open access and open science in research communication with a specific focus on the Humanities.  The two scholars have very different points of departure. Whereas Jean-Claude Guedón has been a professor of Literature in North-America for many years and part of the open access movements since its beginning, Thomas Wiben Jensen is in the early part of his carreer and fairly new to the concept of open access.  The conversation begins with a focus on the Danish national strategy for open access and this strategy's consquenses for the journal NyS where Thomas Wiben is part of the editorial board. However, the conversation brings the reader on an unexpected journey through the history of science communication and through alternative ways of understanding knowledge production as frozen moments or crystals in the Great Conversation of science. It is the hope of the editor and the contributors that the conversation can lead to a debate about innovative ways of communicating and distributing scientific results. "

"Everything we have gained by opening content and data will be under threat if we allow the enclosure of scholarly infrastructures. We propose a set of principles by which Open Infrastructures to support the research community could be run and sustained. - Geoffrey Bilder, Jennifer Lin, Cameron Neylon"

"Citizen science (CS) terms the active participation of the general public in scientific research activities. With increasing amounts of information generated by citizen scientists, best practices to go beyond science communication and publish these findings to the scientific community are needed. This letter is a synopsis of authors' personal experiences when publishing results from citizen science projects in peer-reviewed journals, as presented at the Austrian Citizen Science Conference 2018. Here, we address authors' selection criteria for publishing CS data in open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as barriers encountered during the publishing process. We also outline factors that influence the probability of publication using CS data, including 1) funding to cover publication costs; 2) quality, quantity and scientific novelty of CS data; 3) recommendations to acknowledge contributions of citizen scientists in scientific, peer-reviewed publications; 4) citizen scientists' preference of the hands-on experience over the product (publication) and 5) bias among scientists for certain data sources and the scientific jargon. These experiences show that addressing these barriers could greatly increase the rate of CS data included in scientific publications."

"CON­FER­ENCE ON PHILO­SOPHY AND HIS­TORY OF OPEN SCI­ENCE #PHOS16 (HEL­SINKI, NOV 30 - DEC 1, 2016) Open communication has been a central cornerstone of research since the early days. In our increasingly data-intensive era, research practice and dissemination are facing new challenges as well as opportunities. What is the overall significance of the open science movement and what are, if any, the historical roots and varieties of this movement? This two-day conference brings together contemporary open science advocates and scholars to discuss particular themes relevant to openness in contemporary research practice, including reproducibility, transparency, reusability, politics of science, and other topics as well as their historical roots, in order to gain a broader perspective on these issues. Participation is free and open for the research and the general public"

"A new economic model for analysis of scholarly publishing-journal publishing in particular-is proposed that draws on club theory. The standard approach builds on market failure in the private production (by research scholars) of a public good (new scholarly knowledge). In that model publishing is communication, as the dissemination of information. But a club model views publishing differently: namely as group formation, where members form groups in order to confer externalities on each other, subject to congestion. A journal is a self-constituted group, endeavouring to create new knowledge. In this sense 'a journal is a club'. The knowledge club model of a journal seeks to balance the positive externalities due to a shared resource (readers, citations, referees) against negative externalities due to crowding (decreased prospect of publishing in that journal). A new economic model of a journal as a 'knowledge club' is elaborated. We suggest some consequences for the management of journals and financial models that might be developed to support them. "

"With Open Access and the Humanities, Martin Paul Eve offers a slender, but surprisingly thorough, volume engaging many of the major preoccupations of the open access movement in scholarly communication. In fact, the book's strongest virtue may be the clarity and economy with which Professor Eve gathers and presents the benefits, risks, and feasible means of adapting Humanities disciplines to open access licensing, distribution, and funding models. Much of this gathering and presenting can feel fairly familiar to anyone already immersed in the slightly more mature conversation associated with STEM publishing (many of the "contexts" and "controversies" to which the book's subtitle alludes). There really is much to review, however, and as a primer for the open-access curious humanist, Eve's review should come across as congenial, convenient, and in many cases even demystifying."

"When researchers, funders, universities and libraries started thinking about open access and improving scholarly communication in the late 1990s, the focus was on access. Indeed, the most immediate challenge was to make it possible to access scientific literature resulting from public funding."

"Each year, the coalition will invite non-commercial OA/OS services to apply for SCOSS co-ordinated funding. The SCOSS board will evaluate applicants rigorously based on criteria including the service's value to communities such as funders, universities, libraries, authors, research managers and repositories; and on details pertaining to their governance structure, costs, sustainability measures, and future plans."

"The UK-SCL is an open access policy mechanism which ensures researchers can retain re-use rights in their own work, they retain copyright and they retain the freedom to publish in the journal of their choice (assigning copyright to the publisher if necessary) Re-use rights retention enables early public communication of research findings and use in research and teaching, including online courses. Increased visibility of research outputs greatly improves opportunities for increased impact and citations. A single deposit action under the model policy ensures eligibility for REF2021 and compliance with most funder deposit criteria. Researchers retain copyright and remain free to assign it to the publisher"

"The unique authority of scholarly publishing arises from the rigorous evaluation and assessment works must go through before they are published-known as the peer review process. Peer Review Transparency is an initiative of scholarly publishers, academic librarians, technology innovators, and thought leaders in scholarly communication, with support from the Open Society Foundations, to create agreed definitions of how peer review is conducted, and to disclose clearly and efficiently to readers the kind of review a published work has undergone. "

"ROAD, the Directory of Open Access scholarly Resources, is a service offered by the ISSN International Centre with the support of the Communication and Information Sector of UNESCO.  Launched as a beta version on 16th December 2013,  ROAD has been developped during 2014 (extension of the coverage, additional features...)."

"64% of the journals added to DOAJ after March 2014 do not have article processing charges, while 36% have article processing charges. As of today, the total is 1,123 journals of which 720 do not have article processing charges (based on an ISSN count of journals with no charges supplied by DOAJ) and 403 have charges (from the DOAJ website / advanced search / journals / expand article processing charges). However, this does support the statement that two-thirds of fully open access journals do not have article processing charges."

"Open access (OA) is advocated by science funders, policymakers and researchers alike. It will most likely be the default way of publishing in the not-so-distant future. Nonetheless, the dominant approach to achieve OA at the moment - journal flipping - could have adverse long-term effects for science. To try to stir debate, we here present two dichotomic scenarios for open access in 20 years' time. Our approach is collaborative and open - we recognise that our position is not uncontroversial and welcome engagement from those who would advocate otherwise. What is missing in the scenarios presented below? Which scenario would be better? Which is most realistic?"

"L'offensive des éditeurs contre les réseaux sociaux académiques est lancée ! Elle aura mis du temps, mais la voilà. Alors qu'Academia et ResearchGate semblaient, faute de réaction jusque-là, en position de force, la puissante association STM, qui regroupe notamment Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis ou encore Wiley, vient en effet d'envoyer à ResearchGate le 15 septembre 2017 un courrier pointant directement du doigt ce qu'elle considère comme les lacunes et les abus du réseau. Mais parce qu'il n'y a pas que les éditeurs qui sont concernés, voici une synthèse 2017 pour comprendre les forces en présence d'une guerre du partage plus totalement larvée désormais."